Carried over from a thread now closed...
Gary, rather than assume I'm attacking PBS, how about listening to what I said.
First of all, the funding(From the PBS website):
Funding for PBS programs comes from a variety of sources - member stations' dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, government agencies, foundations, corporations and private citizens.
Yes there are membership dues collected by local locations and those help pay the operating costs of each local station, the majority of what PBS broadcasts and its ability to do so comes from LARGE individual donations, corporations, and the government. Individuals donate for several reasons and high quality programming might be on that list but the quality is in the message, not the HD nature of the programming. Corporations donate mainly because it helps their community status and works well with their tax structures as well as occasionally benefiting from the message in some of the programming. Without the govt, who can say for sure whether PBS would survive - probably - but not as it exists today.
Secondly, the quality of the programming.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is programming on PBS that cannot be matched by other broadcast sources today in its technical and artistic quality as well as content. These values are and added reward for the support that is given by the multiple entities mentioned above gain from their donations but is not necessarily the primary reason for the support. The high quality nature of the HD broadcasts, while amazing and engaging, is not enough to keep PBS on the air. It wasn't enough to keep "the channels not to be mentioned" on the air either.
If the nature and quality of the shows on PBS was the primary reason funding was provided and why the network stayed on the air, you would see all the other networks imitating those shows. Sadly, they are not because Joe Sixpack controls the airwaves in that realm and would not miss PBS when it went away without the large, substantial donations from the govt, corporations, and foundations.
Gary, rather than assume I'm attacking PBS, how about listening to what I said.
First of all, the funding(From the PBS website):
Funding for PBS programs comes from a variety of sources - member stations' dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, government agencies, foundations, corporations and private citizens.
Yes there are membership dues collected by local locations and those help pay the operating costs of each local station, the majority of what PBS broadcasts and its ability to do so comes from LARGE individual donations, corporations, and the government. Individuals donate for several reasons and high quality programming might be on that list but the quality is in the message, not the HD nature of the programming. Corporations donate mainly because it helps their community status and works well with their tax structures as well as occasionally benefiting from the message in some of the programming. Without the govt, who can say for sure whether PBS would survive - probably - but not as it exists today.
Secondly, the quality of the programming.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is programming on PBS that cannot be matched by other broadcast sources today in its technical and artistic quality as well as content. These values are and added reward for the support that is given by the multiple entities mentioned above gain from their donations but is not necessarily the primary reason for the support. The high quality nature of the HD broadcasts, while amazing and engaging, is not enough to keep PBS on the air. It wasn't enough to keep "the channels not to be mentioned" on the air either.
If the nature and quality of the shows on PBS was the primary reason funding was provided and why the network stayed on the air, you would see all the other networks imitating those shows. Sadly, they are not because Joe Sixpack controls the airwaves in that realm and would not miss PBS when it went away without the large, substantial donations from the govt, corporations, and foundations.